Article Data

  • Views 742
  • Dowloads 171

Original Research

Open Access Special Issue

Hemodynamic efficacy of a motor-driven automatic device performing simultaneous sternothoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an animal model of cardiac arrest

  • Kyoung-Chul Cha1
  • Hyung Il Kim2
  • Yoon Suk Lee1
  • Hye Sim Kim3
  • Woo Jin Jung1
  • Young Il Roh1
  • Sung Oh Hwang1,*,

1Department of Emergency Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, 26426 Wonju, Republic of Korea

2Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University, 31116 Cheonan, Republic of Korea

3Center of Biomedical Data Science, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, 26426 Wonju, Republic of Korea

DOI: 10.22514/sv.2022.021 Vol.19,Issue 2,March 2023 pp.66-73

Submitted: 23 December 2021 Accepted: 15 February 2022

Published: 08 March 2023

*Corresponding Author(s): Sung Oh Hwang E-mail:


The aim of this study was to investigate hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes of simultaneous sternothoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SST-CPR) with a prototype of a motor-driven automatic device, comparing to manual standard CPR (S-CPR), in an animal model of ventricular fibrillation (VF). 20 male pigs were randomized to receive standard CPR (S-CPR group) or CPR with an automatic SST-CPR device (A-CPR group) after 5 minutes of VF. Five minutes of basic life support CPR was performed, followed by 10 minutes of advanced life support CPR. Hemodynamic variables including systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (ETCO2), and resuscitation outcomes including rate of restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and 2-hour survival were compared between two groups. Ten animals among the A-CPR group and 8 animals among the S-CPR group were included in the final analysis. SBP was higher in the A-CPR group than in the S-CPR group during CPR (p = 0.046). The DBP, CPP and ETCO2 were not different between two groups (p = 0.412, 0.585, and 0.243, respectively). ROSC rate was 38% in the S-CPR group and 10% in the A-CPR group (p = 0.275). The 2-hour survival rate was 25% in the S-CPR group and 0% in the A-CPR group (p = 0.183). In a swine model of cardiac arrest, CPR with a prototype of a motor-driven automatic SST-CPR device, compared with standard CPR, produced higher systolic blood pressure, but there was no difference in diastolic pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, ROSC rate and 2-hour survival rate.


Cardiac arrest; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Life support

Cite and Share

Kyoung-Chul Cha,Hyung Il Kim,Yoon Suk Lee,Hye Sim Kim,Woo Jin Jung,Young Il Roh,Sung Oh Hwang. Hemodynamic efficacy of a motor-driven automatic device performing simultaneous sternothoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an animal model of cardiac arrest. Signa Vitae. 2023. 19(2);66-73.


[1] Chan PS, McNally B, Tang F, Kellermann A, CARES Surveillance Group. Recent trends in survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States. Circulation. 2014; 130: 1876–1882.

[2] Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care. Emergency cardiac care committee and subcommittees, American Heart Association. Part II. Adult basic life support. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992; 268: 2184–2198.

[3] International liaison committee on resuscitation. 2005 international con-sensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Part 2: adult basic life support. Resuscitation. 2005; 67: 187–201.

[4] Perkins GD, Travers AH, Berg RA, Castren M, Considine J, Escalante R, et al. Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 international consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Resuscitation. 2015; 95: e43–69.

[5] Fitzgerald KR, Babbs CF, Frissora HA, Davis RW, Silver DI. Cardiac output during cardiopulmonary resuscitation at various compression rates and durations. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 1981; 241: H442–H448.

[6] Klouche K, Weil MH, Sun S, Tang W, Povoas H, Bisera J. Stroke volumes generated by precordial compression during cardiac resuscitation. Critical Care Medicine. 2002; 30: 2626–2631.

[7] Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, Sørebø H, Svensson L, Fellows B, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293: 299–304.

[8] Abella BS Alvarado JP, Myklebust H, Edelson DP, Barry A, O’Hearn N, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293: 305–310.

[9] Talley DB, Ornato JP, Clarke AM. Computer aided characterization and optimization of the thumper compression waveform in closed-chest CPR. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology. 1990; 24: 283–288.

[10] Cohen TJ, Tucker KJ, Lurie KG, Redberg RF, Dutton JP, Dwyer KA, et al. Active compression-decompression. A new method of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Working Group. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992; 267: 2916–2923.

[11] Timerman S, Cardoso LF, Ramires JA, Halperin H. Improved hemo-dynamic performance with a novel chest compression device during treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2004; 61: 273–280.

[12] Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2015; 385: 947–955.

[13] Wik L, Olsen JA, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M, Brouwer MA, et al. Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation. 2014; 85: 741–748.

[14] Hwang SO, Lee KH, Cho JH, Oh BJ, Gupta DS, Ornato JP, et al. Simultaneous sternothoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a new method of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2001; 48: 293–299.

[15] Hwang SO, Lee KH, Lee JW, Lee SY, Yoo BS, Yoon J, et al. Simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves short-term survival rate in canine cardiac arrests. Resuscitation. 2002; 53: 209–216.

[16] Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, et al. Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the arrive guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biology. 2020; 18: e3000411.

[17] Garry BP, Bivens HE. The Seldinger technique. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 1988; 2: 403.

[18] Song KJ, Kim JB, Kim J, Kim C, Park SY, Lee CH, et al. Part 2. Adult basic life support: 2015 Korean guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine. 2016; 3: S10–S16.

[19] Idris AH, Becker LB, Ornato JP, Hedges JR, Bircher NG, Chandra NC, et al. Utstein-style guidelines for uniform reporting of laboratory CPR research. A statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the American heart association, the American college of emergency physicians, the American college of cardiology, the European resuscitation council, the heart and stroke foundation of Canada, the institute of critical care medicine, the safar center for resuscitation research, and the society for academic emergency medicine. Writing group. Circulation. 1996; 94: 2324–2336.

[20] Voorhees WD, Babbs C, Tacker WA. Regional blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs. Critical Care Medicine. 1980; 8: 134–136.

[21] Steen S, Liao Q, Pierre L, Paskevicius A, Sjöberg T. Evaluation of LUCAS, a new device for automatic mechanical compression and active decompression resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2002; 55: 285–299.

[22] Lee DK, Cha YS, Kim OH, Cha KC, Lee KH, Hwang SO, et al. Effect of automated simultaneous sternothoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device on hemodynamics in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2018; 55: 226–234.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index The CAS Source Index (CASSI) Search Tool is an online resource that can quickly identify or confirm journal titles and abbreviations for publications indexed by CAS since 1907, including serial and non-serial scientific and technical publications.

Index Copernicus The Index Copernicus International (ICI) Journals database’s is an international indexation database of scientific journals. It covered international scientific journals which divided into general information, contents of individual issues, detailed bibliography (references) sections for every publication, as well as full texts of publications in the form of attached files (optional). For now, there are more than 58,000 scientific journals registered at ICI.

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research The Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research (GFMER) is a non-profit organization established in 2002 and it works in close collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The overall objectives of the Foundation are to promote and develop health education and research programs.

Scopus: CiteScore 0.5(2021) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Embase Embase (often styled EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE), produced by Elsevier, is a biomedical and pharmacological database of published literature designed to support information managers and pharmacovigilance in complying with the regulatory requirements of a licensed drug.

Submission Turnaround Time